OP already addressed that. When it's time to vote or choose your charitable donations or whatever, you can:
> ...go read Wikipedia for 30 minutes and be just as caught up as anyone else because you know the end result of the news cycle instead of suffering through it as it happened.
Gaining acceptance by a tribe and finding ways to not die if you ever become disfavored seems like part of the whole hunter-gatherer package, don't you think?
They tend not to be very wealthy by modern standards. Maybe you could ingratiate yourself to them with them gifts of things that require modern manufacturing infrastructure.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily (exclusively? I skimmed your history and didn't see a single exception) for political and ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it regardless of which side they're battling for.
You've also broken the site guidelines frequently with snark and attacks on other users. Not cool.
Depending upon where one is in the world, even in large wilderness areas, the volume of game has decreased significantly from the pre-agricultural era. Still wouldn't trade a more-abundant bush with modernity, but it is interesting to consider the relative conditions that would make it easier historically.
Ethically, everyone deserves all the blackjack and hookers they want, because we're all beautiful and precious creatures.
Practically, giving someone a direct incentive to do worthwhile things works out far better than some central planner deciding how much they should produce and how much they deserve. Somehow it always turns out that the central planner deserves way more than everybody else.
You can have an okay economy without tech heavy hitters, but the point is that being dependent on US internet tech or Russian natural gas or whatever can be a significant vulnerability.
If by "vulnerable to losing", as in it would hurt their economies and put people out of work or hurt livelihoods because the EU in their infinite wisdom decided to excise one or more of them from the continent, it's pretty much name a non-European tech company.
Even Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle. Service contracts have to be fulfilled, and making a living off of social media like Instagram, YouTube and Twitch isn't just an American phenomenon, actually come to think of it, most of the YouTubers I follow aren't even American. They're mostly in Europe or Australia.
And don't assume they'll just be fine without Facebook either, as far as digital advertising goes, Facebook and Google are pretty much the only game in town. Some small businesses do depend on being able to get business through advertising referrals.
Europe is a rich continent, it's not like they would be destitute if the rich wonders of American tech companies just evaporated from their part of the world tomorrow, but you're not replacing most of them overnight either, so Europe instead is trying this thing where they can at least try to control them.
I mean, I don't see it working out in the long run but in the short term they've shown some muscle, because after all: Europe is a rich continent. Australia, Canada and New Zealand are market-wise, about the size of three US States put together, which is nice, but Europe is pretty much the only large and rich viable market for most tech companies outside of the United States and Japan without putting yourself in a position of having to kiss Chairman Winnie the Pooh on the ring.
That's what I'm trying to wrap my head around. Facebook and Google have value because they have gained monopoly power in markets that they created themselves. The need for unlimited personal data and targeted advertising didn't even exist until they came along. Now they have become so integral to everyday life, that access to them is being framed as an entitlement.
How do you manage a utility that tends towards monopoly, but that is also recognized as an entitlement? The answer is to create a state-run monopoly. What does the Ma Bell for advertising even look like?
Could the Europeans have attracted those monopolies to their shores? What did they do wrong?
First movers tend to have an advantage. That’s rarely permanent so getting concerned and trying to preemptively regulate is just bound to create more problems than it solves.
If Facebook/Google went away from Europe tomorrow, Europe would adapt around their absence just as they adapted to their presence, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t hurt and hurt actual people. You don’t need state monopolies, you just need to let hungry entrepreneurs continue to look for opportunities just as Facebook and Google did at one point in their existence and exploit those opportunities.
Indeed, and I think that a basic safety net can smooth out the roughest of rough edges. There's no reason why a person needs to starve if their platform vanishes.
To be fair, it’s not likely their platform will vanish overnight as long as Google and Facebook are making money in Europe unless the EU really does drive them out. Market shifts can be fast but there’s at least usually some leading indicators when a small business might no longer be viable.
>most of the YouTubers I follow aren't even American. They're mostly in Europe or Australia.
Ok, if that is the case then why would those content creators want a country locked market place to publish their content on? If I were in the shoes of a European content creator I would publish on the platform with the most reach. I don't have to care about which nation the platform is hosted from.
I almost want to see it because I'm really curious to see what happens if you remove Whatsapp from a population where it's very ingrained.
Do they riot? Do they just download an alternative? Does the disruption in business communications cause such a negative impact that it reflects in GDP?
Of course. The value of having a messaging app that nobody else uses is very limited. Most people will roll their eyes every time some sports club, parents ascosiation, knitting circle, wathever will want you to install another niche app. It is a winner take all due to inherent network effects.
You can also predict that wathever emerges will be based on direct or indirect add revenue, and require massive sustained investment for years, thus making it again most likely to be US petrodollar backed, or, if not, petrodollar bought or else just brought to heel or extinguished.
Now that we see what ad based, centralized social media / surveillance companies lead to, more and more people have reasons to take their business elsewhere.
You're assuming government regulation is the only solution.
When Facebook or Comcast or Google start censoring opinions they don't like, I want to hear about it on other places like hackernews so that I and my friends can use them less.
> ...go read Wikipedia for 30 minutes and be just as caught up as anyone else because you know the end result of the news cycle instead of suffering through it as it happened.